There are cosmetics, dental floss, sanitary products, etc. Comes in non-stick pans and take-out food wrappers. The same goes for raincoats and firefighting equipment, as well as pesticides and artificial turf on playgrounds.
They are PFAS. It is a type of man-made chemical substance called perfluoroalkyl substance. They are also called “forever chemicals” because the bonds in their chemical compounds are so strong that they do not decompose for hundreds to thousands of years.
They are also in our water.
A new study of more than 45,000 water samples from around the world found that about 31% of groundwater samples that were not near obvious sources of contamination had levels of PFAS that were considered hazardous to human health by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
About 16% of surface water samples tested that were not near known water sources also showed similarly hazardous levels of PFAS.
The findings “sound an alarm,” said Denis O'Carroll, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New South Wales and one of the authors of the study published Monday in Nature Geoscience. “This applies not only to PFAS, but to all other chemicals we release into the environment. We don’t necessarily know the long-term effects it has on us or the ecosystem.”
High levels of exposure to some PFAS chemicals have been linked to increased cholesterol levels, liver and immune system damage, high blood pressure, pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, and kidney and testicular cancers.
The EPA has proposed strict new drinking water limits for six types of PFAS and could issue a final rule as early as this week.
For the study, Dr. O'Carroll and his colleagues compiled nearly 300 previously published studies on PFAS in the environment. The study included 12,000 samples from surface waters – streams, rivers, ponds and lakes – and 33,900 samples from groundwater wells collected over the past 20 years. This sample does not cover the entire Earth. Environmental researchers are more concentrated in places like the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and the Asia-Pacific Rim.
Dr O'Carroll said the samples were probably concentrated in places where people were already concerned about PFAS contamination. He warned that ultimately the new study's results could be distorted to show higher levels of pollution than the actual global average. But there is reason to believe there is some level of PFAS contamination almost everywhere on Earth, he said.
Among the countries where the study was conducted, the United States and Australia had particularly high concentrations of PFAS in water samples.
Among the available samples, the highest levels of contamination were found near places such as airports and military bases where fire suppression practices typically use PFAS-containing foam. Approximately 60 to 70 percent of groundwater and surface water samples near these types of facilities have PFAS levels that exceed the EPA's hazard index, which measures how hazardous mixtures of certain chemicals can be to human health, and has been proposed by the EPA. New drinking water limits were also exceeded. Water regulations.
The study did an excellent job of collating the available data and highlighting the extent of global pollution from PFAS chemicals, said David, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group who was not involved in the study. Andrews said.
Scientific research on the health effects of PFAS has advanced significantly over the past 10 to 20 years, and what is now considered safe exposure levels is a tiny fraction of what it was a few decades ago, he said.
Under the final language, the proposed EPA drinking water regulations would be a big step forward, he said.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said his agency plans to require public utilities to treat their water to get levels of some PFAS close to zero. This requirement will make the United States one of the most stringent countries in terms of regulations for aquatic PFAS.
But Dr Andrews added that while treating drinking water is important, it does not solve the whole problem. His research shows that PFAS chemicals are also widespread in wildlife.
“Once they are released into the environment, it is incredibly difficult to remove them. “In most cases, it’s not impossible,” he said. “It can be removed from drinking water, but The ultimate solution is to not use it in the first place. “This is especially true where there are clear alternatives.”
For example, some outdoor clothing brands are switching from PFAS to alternative materials such as silicone to make their products waterproof. Fast food restaurants may package burgers in heat-treated paper to prevent grease, or coat them with PFAS-free plastic instead. The Department of Defense has begun replacing existing firefighting foams with fluorine-free foams (F3).
Meanwhile, Dr O'Carroll said: “I'm not at all trying to say we shouldn't drink water.” He added, “Rather, I would say that from a societal perspective, we need to be careful about what we put into the environment.”